Post by No Personality on Jan 30, 2012 5:36:27 GMT -5
Before you rub your eyes or check to make sure you're hallucinating, I'll just tell you: no, your eyes aren't deceiving you. I really did give this movie 23 more points than Part IV. I'm well-aware that this is not viewed as a favorite of many Friday the 13th fans. Though, after seeing Part VI: Jason Lives and knowing many people like the humor of that film, I can't imagine why that is. This sequel is in fact much funnier. Both intentionally and unintentionally. With a series like this, either one is a good thing. When the intended objects of humor score honest laughs, you know the guy in the director's chair (if Paramount gave them to the people who directed these films) isn't second guessing what kind of film he's making.
What kind of film is this? It's the most overtly campy of the entire Paramount series. Nothing is serious. Which isn't always for the best. This film's reputation has stood more on how overly abundant the nudity is. Not sex per se. Just a lot of women standing around with no shirts on for minutes at a time. What's wrong with that? I can't tell you. I've never been shy watching anyone (actually... there was the mooner in Cheerleader Camp- but that's enough to make anyone's stomach turn) disrobe. And I know most of the people who criticise this movie for the nudity aren't either. I'm the first one to tell you- nudity is for porn. But nudity is also used in certain cases to say something about the director.
I think I've been told director Steinmann was a porn director for a time. I rather got the impression that he was one of those peace-and-love types. Porn or not, that he just felt the human body should be celebrated. And that horror is fun, but that graphic violence mixed with sex is actually sending a negative message to the viewers. Maybe even that movies of the 80's were telling people that sex and nudity were things to be ashamed of. I could respect that, easily. He has talked about the studio's insistance on a high body count. And he almost seems to resent that. Like an, "if I must" sorta thing. I doubt now that the studio pressured any director into showing nudity. I wonder which Paramount execs were more uptight about.
This sequel has always been given an unfair reception. Though fewer people get angry (like I'm told Halloween series' fans were when they discovered Michael Myers wasn't in Part III) at it now. I've always liked it. The budget for its' time was probably higher than the previous films, but there is a cheapness to it that is actually quite charming. Even the music feels cheap. So- you know it's not going to be very suspenseful. But, after going all-out for Friday the 13th Part III, Harry Manfredini's scores were never as good. Some have even said this movie has no real style. It does on home video! I always got a little thrill from popping in the VHS. Even (if not more) when I rented it. I'd get some pizza and a Pepsi and let the fun unfold.
This movie is a lot of fun. Certainly a lot more free-spirited than the one before it. It lacks scares but has a light air of tension. Mostly generated by the occasional ultra-stylish closeups during the death scenes. One features a titled camera and a hatchet cleaver. Another features same-cleaver smashing through a window at a victim (both with closeups of the victims' reactions). Axes spin. Gnarly hands twist objects that are normally harmless. Bloody hands appear in doorways. Flashes of lightning reveal horrors in otherwise safe and not-scary rooms. Even hallucination sequences suggest you might be in for a big surprise later on. Big surprises never come (hence the half-ass rating), but- this is a slasher film. You know what they're all cut from.
With slasher films, you know that you have to take what you can get. And I've seen 'em in all shapes and sizes. Few are as fun as this one. One reason is, as I mentioned before, it's more free-spirited than Part IV. People still get killed while naked or partially naked after having sex. But you know the killer isn't doing it because of conservative ideology. Nor did the writer devise nasty perverted moments where you wanted the actor to realize what movie they were in and how pointless it is to whine about not getting laid. Having sex and the intense fear of lingering death take some work to be connected when you're making these kinds of statements overtly. To make the story short, the characters here are usually in a good damn mood while having sex.
I should think that would be more appealing to everyone. It's actually a defining element to a great many slasher films. Though not always essential to make a movie work (the original Prom Night is a decent example of horned-up teens in a bad mood). The adults here are usually the ones with all the irritability problems. There's even one slightly annoying moment (though it's also fodder for a lot of fun-poking on my end) where the Pam character suggests more than was intended by a simple "stop it." She turns to the Matt character - who is, when delivering his line, a lot cooler and more calm than her outburst warranted - grabs him and sounds as though she's on the brink of a nervous breakdown.
Though, not because she's stressed. Because she's practically suggesting that he has a serious problem with anger. If that is in any way meant to be expressed in this movie, it was a mistake. The actor playing Matt is completely relaxed (against type? Maybe) the entire movie, save for having to react in a fight sequence. If anything- she's suggesting she has a serious problem with anger. But hilariously, this could be taken a lot further with very little effort. You could see the two of them as almost domestic partners, who see the young people staying at their halfway house / mental home facility as like their children (shades of Child's Play 2 to come?). Who get a feeling of pride (like sending them off to college) when they're able to turn them out healtheir than when they came in. You could add her saying, "you're wrecking our happy home and hurting our family!" Or, "please! Don't drink anymore!" (from Part VII: The New Blood) and after the way she did that "stop it!", it wouldn't seem the slightest bit out of place.
Like I said- this is an unusual sequel. And it is FUNNY! Whereas, in Jason Lives, Martin the caretaker is fairly pathetic comic relief, this movie's Ethel and Junior are an absolute riot. Though together they're stronger than he is when they're apart, I've come to regard Ethel as one of my all-time favorite movie characters. I'm sure they could have done more with her, but even in her brief almost cameo part in this movie- this is a woman you're not likely to ever forget. If you've seen the movie (and I'm betting you have), I'll spare you the details of what she does. Watching her do it is compelling. The redneck / hillbilly stereotypes on display are nothing special on paper. But she brings this character to life. They could literally have made a spin-off movie or show had she lived. They could even bring her back as a zombie. I'd pay to see that!
The rest of the characters are either purely stupid or are just simple stereotypes. But most of the actors do a good job of injecting some life into them. Much as I hate how oppressively low-brow it is, Part IV: The Final Chapter offered the best acting in the series up to that point. And the baton is passed through the next 4 and never dropped (until, arguably- the New Line installments, but who the hell counts those anyway?). Reggie and Pam are the lead survivor characters by default (after it becomes obvious that the story is prepping the returning Tommy from Part IV to be the main suspect for the not-yet-announced new killer) and they're quite likable. Thankfully, for his natural interest in beautiful women, the writers actually made "Reckless" Reggie a young gentleman who doesn't just peep and shoot his mouth off around them.
Carol Locatell as Ethel is of course the only real sorta Inside the Actors Studio type of the bunch of performers here (she's also held up very well all these years), so she completely becomes this character and delivers even-subtleties you wouldn't expect in one of these movies. John Robert Dixon has a real natural and organic quality, though he's only playing the class clown / prankster stereotype here. Without a sad underlying tone to it. That's reserved for the token nerd character- the stuttering Jake. Played by Jerry Pavlon (who I understand is something of a lifelong liberal / pacifist type and quit acting only about a year after this movie), he's the only character played for drama here (other than lead character Tommy, but I'll get to him in a second) and Jerry takes something in Jake to heart and plays him seriously.
Tiffany Helm might be the most talented young actor of the bunch. Because she never gives a similar note to her performance in any two scenes. She also seems to look like a completely different person in every scene she's in. She goes from bratty teenager to very mature woman (in her extreme outdoor closeups) to an even younger little girl with a surprisingly chubby face (in her inevitable death scene). The costuming and makeup people had a field-day with her. Another fun element to this movie is how wild she dresses. And her punky/funky almost-interpretive dance hand moves. She seems to be doing some kind of version of The Robot. Though from what futuristic decade one can only guess.
John Shepherd went ultra-religious (I'm told) after this movie, but he's doing his darndest to channel the real spirit of a psychologically tormented victim of internalized fear and repressed childhood anger... but how can we forget that he only experienced one night that changed his life? I appreciate his trying though and his just an inch too-long hair is the only thing that irks me about his version of Tommy. Lastly, Marco St. John's Sheriff is not the best town sheriff around (in terms of deep, complex characterization) but he's highly likable and is obviously the least likely to be mistaken as a believable red herring.
Oh, just one more thing... can you fuckin' believe Grace's gay-boyfriend Josh (the tofu-loving guy) from Will & Grace is Pete, the straight greaser in this movie?! I'm blowing the Gay-Whistle on Vinnie though, the other greaser. Played by Anthony Barrile. If this movie wasn't his official Hollywood coming-out, then Paramount's Kiss Me Guido was. He's total Italiano. But all his "F"s and "S"s come out "Th"s. Sing it with me right now, everyone and kids - all together now - "Thucking Ath-hole!" ;D
Additional Thoughts / (Almost) 2 Years Later:
Time to talk about some of the unintentionally funny and strange aspects of the movie. One of my favorites is the diner sequence. Something of a much more neon callback to the original little diner from the first movie where Steve was served by a kindly and flirtacious chubby, overly madeup, clownish but sweet woman, it's not the comically voiced Bob De Simone who's really fun (he's also the sleaziest character in the movie, so mercifully we only have to put up with his assholishness for one memorably WTF? shot where he actually wags his tongue at Pam when her back is turned). It's his insane, bubbly, blonde bimbo girlfriend, Lana. Played by Rebecca Wood (Sharkey), it's not her bubbliness that makes an impression, but (and remember I intro'd this by saying it's unintentionally funny) while she's admiring herself in the mirror - like she's Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe combined - and doing the classic Friday the 13th walk-around-a-setting until-the-cat-jumps-out-at-you, well... she begins to look extremely mannish. It's the closeups. She looks remarkably like William Hurt.
The next thing is so freakish that the movie's crew made mention of it in the 2009 DVD audio commentary. But I want to really open it up a little, since I noticed something else about these two characters' relationship that has struck me as disturbing for quite sometime now. The moment that was mentioned in the commentary and the thing I always found the single greatest WTF?(!) of the entire movie was the moment where Reggie saves Pam from Jason. In the rain. Other than the fact that the moment of her crawling in the wet leaves is just horrible (mostly because it leads her to roll over and just scream for about 15-20 seconds... ample time to at least TRY to get up and run away, don't ya think?), she runs to give him a hug. Normal so far. She holds it a bit long. Understandable, given that she almost let herself get killed. But the pelvic thrusting which comes next is... something else entirely. The only logical rationale that makes sense is that it was so cold, she was doing this to warm herself up. Anything else is terrifying.
The other thing between Pam and Reggie that always raised a weird flag for me was the moment they start running in terror. Or, should I say, Reggie tries to run after Pam grabs him but she just ends up pushing him. Down the stairs, across the room, knocking him down and half-injuring his knee. He overcomes it pretty quickly because they need to do the thing where after they see Jason outside in the rain, they have to lose each other. This can only happen if Reggie can run faster. Mind over matter? Maybe. But, MAN, is she being a real bitch about this "run for your life" thing. She yells at him, even though he's trying to run: "Move! GET UP! C'mon! Let's go!" Um... I think he knows there's danger and trouble if he stands still. He's not just standing there. If anything, she's basically choosing to stand behind him and is effectively pushing him out of her way but holding onto him so that he stays in front of her. While being very verbally abusive, considering it's not his fault there's a killer on the loose.
Another important note, though I wouldn't say it really hurt anything since this shouldn't be a heavy movie anyway (and its' campiness largely prevents that), is that this movie has a very broad definition of what's psychologically unstable regarding the Pinehurt institute's "inmates." Giving Jake a stutter to my knowledge doesn't explain or indicate by itself a significant social awkwardness or whathaveyou worth isolating him from society at large. Nor does being a slut or horndog explain what the friggin' hell Tina and Eddie are doing there. No attempt is made whatosever to give us a clue what their problems are. Not even a nervous twitch between the two. Just 20 seconds for each character during the breakfast scene would have made all the difference, apparently- if Jake's having a stutter is a valid symbol of a serious development problem. Or Robin's intense staring while watching a movie and condescendingly girlish giggling at boys who express an interest in having sex with her. Violet on the other hand is shown as a time bomb waiting to blow. Everything about her character suggests that she has problems.
And then, there's Roy. What's there to say? He blends into the background. You barely notice him. The same can't be said, unfortunately, for the greaser character Pete. Vinnie is the clear victim (bottom) in their relationship and so, you feel a little for him (very little, I know, but... c'mon- he's gay and pretending to be straight because of - as Heathers put it, 4 years later - "an uncaring and un-understanding world"; isn't that worth something?). Pete... his abusiveness is kinda hot in a heel sort of way. But... the one thing that can't be forgiven: he scats. And it sounds like scat (if you catch my meaning). I think I've indicated the series' absolute worst acting / dialogue moments as being Part IV's "holy Jesus jumping" Ch"ristmas shit(!)" and Part VI's "don't piss me off, junior, or I will repaint this office with your brains!" Those are the moments from the series that make me cringe the most. But, even then... Pete's scatting might be the worst moment of the entire (Paramount) franchise. Someone get the shotgun and put that poor dog out of our misery.
The movie really is a treasure trove of insane, quirky, absurd, entertaining A-sides. Nearly making it something of a cult camp icon alongside the ranks of Silent Night, Deadly Night Part 2. Well... it could have that if the fanbase for this franchise overall weren't so unbelievably immature. I admit I have my moments but - if the idiots New Line drug up for their Jason X DVD supplements are to be believed, and, of course, there's the shoot-yourself-in-the-head awfulness that is His Name Was Jason - compared to many Friday the 13th fans, I'm a party-pooper (and using that phrase alone doesn't do me any favors). Anyway, every word out of Ethel's mouth certainly begs to be memed or is fanfic fodder (anyone up for, as a prequel or extended dream sequence, the romantic story of Ethel + the Clint Eastwood-esque stranger who asks for a meal?) or is simply arresting. In terms of taste, good or bad (as though there was any new ground to be laid after the first 4 movies), this is a genuinely shocking sequel. As you can imagine, I found it shocking for the better. Even if Debi Sue Voorhees' nude scene went on so long that I almost became disgusted, rather than feelng relaxed or becoming tense waiting for "Jason" to strike.
But, really, there are so many reasons why this is just such a vastly better sequel than Part IV. I mean, first of all, who was really in the mood for Part IV after the first 3 movies? It was a change but not enough of one and in all the wrong ways. It tried to retain the darkness (and darkly lit, hard to see outdoors scenes especially) of the previous movies but make the whole pace move faster. Too much faster. And of course, more sleaze. The least attractive element of the previous movies, if you ask me. What really made the movies work was the slow pacing. It gave you so much time to look around and take everything in. Get such a wide open feeling of being isolated in a camp / lodge / cabin in the woods environment. You never had to go camping again if you had these movies. I liked that. Now, things had to change and you know I liked that too since I have practically bragged about how big a Jason Takes Manhattan fan I am. And this movie shows us a good way to get beyond the slump that was Part IV- that movie literally exists just to get us here in my opinion. (And the gore.)
Though, like the first movie, this one really builds up its' excellence. I wouldn't give this a 51 if it didn't have its' faults. But it eventually surpasses that guilty-pleasure sort of fun when we get to the barn scene. Apparently, there was originally some kind of deleted scene establishing the barn with - of all people - Robin and JOEY (I read this online, and I sincerely doubt it was Jake) eating candy and lying in the hay. It's more epic to just be introduced to the barn the way we are. But it's a real no-turning-back moment that is plain epic. No other way to describe it. Every moment is a cue for me to pinch myself. Sometimes I still think I dreamt it- I cherish this scene. It's one of my favorites in the franchise, bar none. And the hospital finale to come afterward, though less so than the barn scene. The hospital scene is downright sleek for this movie. Why the hell do we open on a shot of a bitchy nurse sitting at the reception desk and a closeup of her ultra-red nails; Suspiria reference? Oh, and, did anyone else get creeped out by the little old woman nurse nodding her head at Pam? Scarier than Large Marge, for sure.
And, by the way, I completely see the hypocrisy inherent in complaining about "sleaze" and posting alluring pictures of men in (almost) every article / review I do. What can I say? Your evils have corrupted me.
